Case Digest (G.R. No. 110097)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Arnulfo Astorga, G.R. No. 110097, December 22, 1997, the Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Arnulfo Astorga (accused-appellant) by Information dated March 24, 1992 with kidnapping under Article 267, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly wilfully and feloniously depriving eight‑year‑old Yvonne Traya of her liberty on December 29, 1991 in Maco, Davao. Arraigned on February 24, 1993, Astorga pleaded not guilty; trial followed in the Regional Trial Court of Tagum under Judge Marcial L. Fernandez. The trial court, in a March 31, 1993 Decision, found Astorga guilty of kidnapping and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Because of the penalty imposed, the appeal was filed directly with the Supreme Court.
Prosecution witnesses testified that at about 6:30 p.m., during a brownout, Astorga told Yvonne to go with him to buy candy, grabbed her when she did not answer, covered her mouth, dragged her into the Maco Central Elementary School compound, and then onto the highway toward Tagum (the opposite direction of Yvonne’s home). A group of youths en route to a church drama noticed them, followed and chased Astorga, who at one point picked up and ran with Yvonne until they were overtaken; Yvonne was recovered and returned home and Astorga was brought back to her house and later told to leave.
Astorga’s defense witnesses, and Astorga himself, testified that he had been drinking that day, that Yvonne asked him for money to buy candy and they merely strolled together while he sobered up, that he became confused about directions, and that he carried the crying child at times to comfort her and because of the darkness. The trial court rejected the intoxication defense, credited the prosecution’s narrative of force and deception, and concluded the victim was deprived of liberty; it convicted Astorga of kidnapping.
On appeal to the Supreme Court (direct appeal because of the sentence), Astorga argued (1) the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and thus not credible; (2) th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the prosecution witnesses credible despite minor inconsistencies and improbabilities in their testimony?
- Did the prosecution prove the essential element of detention/locking up required for kidnapping under Article 267, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code?
- Is the absence of proved motive fatal to the prosecut...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)